[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67879-67881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31423]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-533-502]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Certain Welded Carbon 
Steel Pipes and Tubes From India

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited Sunset Review: Certain 
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from India.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from India (64 FR 23596) 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and 
substantive comments filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and 
inadequate response (in this case, no response) from respondent 
interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited 
review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that 
revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the 
Final Results of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews 
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''), and 19 C.F.R. Part 351 
(1999) in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues 
relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in 
the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct 
of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset 
Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

    The products covered by this order include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, with an outside 
diameter of 0.372 inches or more, but not more than 16 inches in 
outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, 
galvanized, or painted) or end finish (plain end, beveled end, 
threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally 
known as standard pipe, though they may also be called structural or 
mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes and tubes are 
intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, 
air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-
conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. 
Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical 
applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protections of 
electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.
    The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing or those 
types or mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe 
applications. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical 
description outline above are included in the scope of this order, 
except for line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. The subject 
merchandise was classifiable under items 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241, 
610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258, and 
610.4925 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated 
(``TSUSA''); currently, it is classifiable under item numbers 
7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 
7306.30.5805, and 7306.30.5090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). Although the TSUSA and HTSUS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    In the final determination of the original investigation, covering 
the period February 1, 1985, through July 31, 1985 (51 FR 9089, March 
17, 1986), the Department determined a margin of 7.08 percent for Tata 
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (``TISCO''), and ``all others.'' 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two of the three companies investigated, Zenith Steel Pipes 
and Industries Ltd. and Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., were excluded from 
the final affirmative determination, since the Department found no 
sales at less than fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There have been six administrative reviews for the subject 
antidumping duty order. A summary of these reviews follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Period of Review (``POR'')                    Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 May 1987--30 April 1988..............  56 FR 64753 (December 12, 1991)
1 May 1988--30 April 1989..............  56 FR 64753 (December 12, 1991)
1 May 1990--30 April 1991..............  57 FR 54360 (November 18, 1992)
1 May 1995--30 April 1996..............  62 FR 47632 (September 10,
                                          1997)
                                         62 FR 63070 (November 26, 1997)
                                          Amended
1 May 1996--30 April 1997..............  63 FR 32825 (June 16, 1998)
                                         63 FR 39269 (July 22, 1998)
                                          Amended
                                         63 FR 66120 (December 1, 1998)
                                          Amended
1 May 1997--30 April 1998..............   64 FR 23821 (May 4, 1999)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 67880]]

In addition to the companies subject to the original investigation, the 
Department has investigated and/or reviewed imports from producers/
exporters Jindal Pipes Ltd. (``Jindal''), Rajinder Pipes Ltd. 
(``Rajinder'') and Rajinder Steel Ltd. (collectively ``RSL''), and 
Lloyd's Metals & Engineers (``Lloyds'').
    To date, the Department has not issued a duty-absorption 
determination in this case.

Background

    On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from 
India (64 FR 23596), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The 
Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of 
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp., Sawhill Tubular Division--Amoco, Century 
Tube, IPSCO Tubular Inc., LTV Steel Tubular Products, Maverick Tube 
Corporation, Sharon Tube Company, Western Tube and Conduit, and 
Wheatland Tube Company (collectively ``domestic interested parties'') 
on May 18, 1999, within the deadline specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The domestic interested 
parties claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the 
Act as U.S. producers of certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes. 
We received a complete substantive response from the domestic 
interested parties on June 2, 1999, within the 30-day deadline 
specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 
did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested 
party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an 
expedited, 120-day review of this order.
    In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a 
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
1995). On September 7, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset 
review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes from India is extraordinarily complicated and extended 
the time limit for completion of the final results of this review until 
not later than November 29, 1999, in accordance with section 
751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 48579 (September 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in 
making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-
average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent 
reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the 
period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping duty 
order, and it shall provide to the International Trade Commission 
(``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to 
prevail if the order is revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. Additionally, the domestic interested parties' comments with 
respect to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of 
the margin are addressed within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

    Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically 
the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1 
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the 
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on 
methodological and analytical issues, including the bases for 
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on 
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2). In addition, the Department 
indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an 
antidumping duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping where (a) dumping continued at any level above de minimis 
after the issuance of the order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise 
ceased after the issuance of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated 
after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject 
merchandise declined significantly (see section II.A.3).
    In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above, 
section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine that revocation of an order is likely to lead to continuation 
or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested party waives its 
participation in the sunset review. In the instant review, the 
Department did not receive a response from any respondent interested 
party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset 
Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
argue that revocation of the subject order would result in the 
resumption of sales at less than fair value by margins equivalent to 
those found in the original investigation (see June 2, 1999, 
Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 3). With respect 
to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the 
issuance of the order, the domestic interested parties assert that 
margins have increased since the original investigation. For example, 
domestic interested parties note the dumping margins for two 
investigated companies, Tisco and Rajinder, increased to 87.39 percent. 
Id.
    With respect to import volumes, the domestic interested parties 
assert that import volumes for the subject merchandise declined 
significantly, noting that 1998 imports amounted to 12,000 tons, or 
nearly a 50-percent drop from the 22,000 tons imported in 1985 (the 
year prior to the subject order). Id. In their substantive response, 
the domestic interested parties argue that both the overall decrease in 
imports from India into the United States and continuing presence of 
even higher dumping margins than those found in the original 
investigation indicate a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping 
should the order be terminated.
    As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if companies continue 
dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the Department may 
reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were 
removed. Dumping margins above de minimis have existed throughout the 
life of the order, and continue to exist, for shipments of subject 
merchandise from all Indian producers/exporters investigated other than 
those excluded from this order.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, we considered the volume 
of imports before and after the issuance of the order in 1986. The 
statistics on imports of the subject merchandise cited by the domestic 
interested parties and those we examined show that Indian producers/
exporters continued to export after the order was issued, although not

[[Page 67881]]

at pre-order levels. According to U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, in 
1985, the year prior to the order, approximately 20 million kilograms 
of subject merchandise were imported into the United States. Although 
imports peaked in 1988, average imports declined to approximately 7.5 
million kilograms over the next ten years, which is almost 50 percent 
of pre-order levels.
    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of 
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Given that 
dumping has continued at levels above de minimis after the issuance of 
the order, average imports of subject merchandise declined after the 
issuance of the order, respondent interested parties have waived their 
right to participate in this review before the Department, and absent 
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that 
dumping is likely to continue if the order were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will 
normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in 
the final determination in the original investigation. Further, for 
companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not 
begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department 
normally will provide a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from 
the investigation (see section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). 
Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more recently calculated 
margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty-absorption 
determinations (see sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin).
    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties, 
based on their argument that dumping is likely to continue should the 
order be terminated, urge the Department to find that the magnitudes of 
the margins likely to prevail are identical to the margins found for 
Indian producers/exporters in the original investigation (see June 2, 
1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 3).
    We agreed with the domestic interested parties' assertion that we 
should report to the Commission the margins from the original 
investigation. These margins reflect the behavior of exporters without 
the discipline of the order in place. Absent argument, or evidence to 
the contrary, we see no reason to change our usual practice. Therefore, 
the Department, consistent with the SAA at 890 and the House Report at 
64, will report to the Commission the margins from the original 
investigation as contained in this Final Results of Review section of 
this notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margin listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                     Producer/exporter                        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tata Iron and Steel Company, Ltd...........................         7.08
All others.................................................         7.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.305 of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 29, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-31423 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P